Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libb2/libb2.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libb2/libb2-0-1.20171225git60ea74.fc27.src.rpm Description: C library providing BLAKE2b, BLAKE2s, BLAKE2bp, BLAKE2sp. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter This package is for Fedora and epel7.
>Source0: https://github.com/BLAKE2/libb2/archive/%{checkout}.zip#/libb2-%{checkout}.zip Use "archive/%{checkout}/libb2-%{checkout}.zip" instead. As a minor nitpick - I think "%{git_commit}" is a more common name for this macro. >Release: 1.%{date}git%(echo %{checkout} | cut -c-6)%{?dist} Please define a separate macro for this ("%global checkout_short" or whatever); it will help readability. You should also include the LICENSE file (add "%license LICENSE" to %files).
It's usually called shortcommit: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services I'm not sure you want to enable native building, as e.g., 32-bit build machines may support more specific flags (to build) than we allow (to run). A fat binary *may* be the better choice.
I had missed LICENSE file... Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libb2/libb2.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libb2/libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc27.src.rpm Version is changed to 0.98 (as reported during checking); enable-native flag disabled. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25811539
- Remove all the Git things and use this tarball instead: Source0: https://blake2.net/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Split your description line to stay below 80 characters: libb2.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C BLAKE2 is a cryptographic hash function faster than MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, and SHA-3, Package is good otherwise. Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libb2/review- libb2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libb2-0.98-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libb2-devel-0.98-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libb2-debuginfo-0.98-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libb2-debugsource-0.98-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libb2-0.98-1.fc29.src.rpm libb2.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C BLAKE2 is a cryptographic hash function faster than MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, and SHA-3, libb2.x86_64: W: no-documentation libb2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libb2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libb2-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation libb2.src: E: description-line-too-long C BLAKE2 is a cryptographic hash function faster than MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, and SHA-3, libb2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libb2-0.98.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
Thank you Robert.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libb2
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-aca5d9d9bb
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b23deee7f8
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-91d2ac0fb5
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-acad70e6b1
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b23deee7f8
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-aca5d9d9bb
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-91d2ac0fb5
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-acad70e6b1
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libb2-0.98-1.20171225git60ea749.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.